Talk:Curiosity (rover)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lensaticflare.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the voltage of the power supply and batteries?

Although battery capacity is given in amp-hours, to understand the capacity for work we must also know the voltage. Harmony's Dave (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Dave sanatogan@gmail.com--Harmony's Dave (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation 77 incorrect link

citation 77 links to a 404 page. correct link: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090007730/downloads/20090007730.pdf Ogurecheck (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Image cleanup and soil to regolith

I've gone through and removed quite a lot of images from the article, as it was definitely getting overloaded with indiscriminate images. The article still feels somewhat clogged, though the remaining images mostly illustrate the concepts they're discussing so I don't want to be too heavy-handed. There's also recently been a move of Martian Soil to Martian regolith, and I've updated the article to reflect that. There's some technical nuance between soils and regolith. Since all (Martian) soils are regolith but not all regolith are soils, I've updated the text to use "regolith" in most places where soil was used.

I don't know if anyone else feels like trying to clean up some of the usage of images, or choosing different representative images in the gallery at the end, but hopefully this is a better starting position than was there before. I think the mission track was actually useful, but it was long out of date and worked into the article by slapping an image at the end, which didn't really work very well. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Warrenmck. Some of the seemingly duplicated image should go (selfies on Mount Sharp look pretty much alike, keeping a few would be useful but not the entire section) but a mass removal of long-term images would probably need full discussion and consensus. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a mass removal of long term images. The images have been out of here since July and they were put in, en masse, by a now CBANned user. One of the main reasons for the CBAN was years of indiscriminate galleries being added to these articles, which I and some other editors have spent a lot of time working on undoing. There's some clear MOS guidelines here, but even more clear is the fact that we're undoing one person's damage, as opposed to some kind of slowly built long term consensus. We don't need those giant, indiscriminate galleries on these articles and it's taken a huge amount of work to undo those messes so far, and it's still ongoing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, replied to me by accident, so I assume you're not getting a ping, @Randy Kryn. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Warrenmck, way too many images removed and a large removal like this doesn't maintain the page. Some of these were very good explanatory images for the topic. I guess I haven't seen the page since July, but was aware of the overabundance but still useful galleries (since they were added back twice it seems some editors are in agreement that a mass removal is not the way to go here). An in-between compromise seems in order here. As for the user, even a ban from adding those type of galleries shouldn't be a reason to remove all of their work. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove all the images though, I kept many in which are explanatory and removed some which fall firmly into WP:TMI. You can get a sense of the scale of the damage by taking a look at what's still left to do. Keep in mind I'm not the only editor working on this, but the problem of large, indiscriminate galleries is a problem of one user, not long-term consensus and per WP:GALLERY:

Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text.

We have plenty of room in the article for the images which are present, and it's hard to argue that we're fundamentally missing images which a gallery could improve, but I'm all ears. Just please don't edit the junk back in en masse as a revert, there's plenty of surgical options. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow. This article has been damaged by the gallery removals. I haven't looked at the page in quite awhile, and it used to be full of interesting and informative gifs and history told in the form of still and moving images. The WP:GALLERY policy you link to should be ignored (WP:IAR) in cases while worthwhile galleries are removed. I don't know how such language passed, seems a deletionists dream language, but the harm done to this page alone is evident in the amount of good images removed even if some trimming was helpful. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, feel free to add things back in, but I disagree with your assessment, the article as it was was a complete mess and a ton of indiscriminate images helps nobody, and much of what was here was overly-detailed minutiae that doesn't serve much purpose other than showing off some of the photos taken. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)